I would like everyone to respond to this:

Have you called or asked your State Reps and encouraged them to take back there power as a State to stop the encroachment of the Federales.

My Ca. State Reps Nestande & Benoit tell me I am the only one of their constituents that brings this up.

As the Tea Parties, 9-12 march show, when the natives get restless, the ruling elite start paying attention. [But you being the only one to ask also supports the thesis of “Meathead America”.]

What is the best way to get this concept rolling?

[Good question: maybe we need to start our own TP.]

Besides, denying revenue to the fedgov solves nothing. A government that issues a fiat currency need not collect any taxes at all. The income tax is simply an Orwellian expression of power. I don’t really expect any change until the foreigners who supply most of our petroleum and manufactured goods stop accepting our Monopoly money.

One of the major debates that needs to be raised in this area is the fed’s use of “promoting the general welfare” and “regulate commerce” clauses. As long as “judicial interpretation” allows the use of these clauses to undermine the very reason the Constitution was adopted, then States Rights will be hamstrung. In fact FDR used the judicial interpretation of these clauses to centralize power (See J. T. Flynn’s work: Decline of the American Republic).

Secondly, the 16th Amendment needs to be repealed. It provides the fed with unrestrained control over the nation’s purse strings. As long as the fed has that power, the States will face constant encroachment upon their Constitutionally defined territory, which is broad in contrast to the specified powers enumerated for the fed. The 16th Amendment has solidified what Oppenheimer called the “political means of living” – in other words thievery.

Both of these matters blatantly contradict the purpose of 10th Amendment. I hope that States Rights become a rallying cry, not merely for a specific issue, but for a return to the reason the original 1789 document was adopted in the first place – to prevent centralization of power.

I love the reaction that people are demonstrating against nationalized health care. If the plan is defeated, great. But we need to get to the root of where these “designs” come from to begin with. The fed needs to be stripped of its centralized power, which came about by an assault on the Constitution.

Until then, talk is cheap.

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/StatesRebellionPending.htm

A big effort should be raised to encourage our state reps to use the constitution to take back there power to determine what is best for there individual states and there residents

If a state withholds tax money to ” The DC Dim Bulbs ” I wonder if that will get there attention ?

I am not searching for political purity and if Michele Bachmann is in favor of local firefighters (e.g. “impure” for Rothbardian anarchists), that is most assuredly NOT a 10th Amendment national issue. I am waiting for some of these Glenn Becks and Michele Bachmanns to wake up that the US Congress cannot require a DEA to search Glaucoma Grannie’s basement for a marijuana plant. It would also help if she realized that this same Constitution does not authorize a “commander-in-chief” from sending an American Praetorian Guard into to “liberate” Yingyangland and provide them with a “democracy”.

Like her cute cousin Sarah, she gets a couple of good grades – but I’m not sure whether she can master the entire curriculum.

{P.S. My late wife excepted, the Republicans lead in the babe factor}

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

A very rare case. However, this was
contradicted by Gonzales v. Raich.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html

And, while I would find a Supreme Court debate on the subject of compulsory health insurance fascinating, its track record with respect to the Constitution has been truly horrid over the last 70 years. Even in cases where they find for those fighting against the cancerous growth of the feds, it’s almost always narrowly written.

When was the last time SCOTUS rejected an entire piece of significant legislation? Can you imagine 5 judges stating that the whole idea of federally imposed health care is unconstitutional? Me neither.

‘It is your destruction, O Israel,
That you are against Me, against your help.
Where now is your king
That he may save you in all your cities,
And your judges of whom you requested,
“Give me a king and princes”?
I gave you a king in My anger
And took him away in My wrath.’ Hosea 13: 9-11